In some cases the wise men of their day were, in fact, “suppressing the truth” and ignoring the evidence around them that there is a God.
“Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish,” wrote the apostle Paul. ...“they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their
unintelligent heart became darkened.”—Romans 1:18-22

Like an inflated balloon, it had the appearance of solidity, but there was no substance to it.

The interesting thing is it seems you are unable to honestly question your own beliefs if they contradict the book.

Would you accept that if the book is wrong (A wild idea I know but please humor me), your belief in the book makes you incapable of seeing or learning
that it is wrong? (Hypothetically of course)

On the one hand, his mind is open, that is, receptive to new information. He properly weighs such new information against the Bible standard and fits
what is true into his pattern of thinking. On the other hand, his mind sees the danger of information that is entirely inconsistent with his
Bible-based values.

So Christians learned to avoid what the apostle Paul said were “the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1 Timothy 6:20) The
reason that Paul called such knowledge ‘false’ is that it lacked one crucial factor—a source or reference from God against which their theories
could be tested.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
You're doing something similar as the one I responded to in this comment
and this comment which links back to
the main comment about inductive reasoning. The "previously shared
video" mentioned in that last comment can be found in this comment,
which also asks a question about the fact/certainty/truth that 1+1=2. The question isn't purely rhetorical, a direct ("yes" or "no") answer from the
one that comment was directed to would have been nice (rather than a dodge and more arguing and debating behaviour, 'not open to any agreement' as the
behaviour is described and predicted in the bible at 2 Timothy 3:1-5, dancing around
the issue).

There are more places where I responded to that behaviour in the threads about "knowledge" (on the philosophy and metaphysics forum, green) and
"truth" (on the religion, theology forum, yellow).

It's not that evidence is not being perceived as logical by the opposition. It is that the evidence you offer is not objective. If evidence
cannot be scientifically verified (ie link between dna and a designer), it is not considered objective since no experiment can prove that link. The
inner workings of DNA alone are not enough to prove design. We have observed simple become complex before via evolution, so there is no reason to
deny the possibility here. Obviously the origin of DNA is still a work in progress, but you are sitting here blowing your horn, not even considering
the possibility that DNA could have begun very simple, just like the first life.

Also, you keep claiming that we capitalize on ambiguity of language, but that is actually the opposite of reality. ID advocates like yourself
intentionally use vague, generalizing and often metaphorical language to suggest your opinion of design is more than an opinion. I try to be as
specific as possible, and I have had to correct the equivocation fallacy multiple times where folks will use 2 different meanings of the same word
when it only applies to 1 context. Look, I respect your opinion, I just don't understand why you have to keep touting it as fact, when science is
still actively trying to find the answer.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
You're doing something similar as the one I responded to in this comment
and this comment which links back to
the main comment about inductive reasoning. The "previously shared
video" mentioned in that last comment can be found in this comment,
which also asks a question about the fact/certainty/truth that 1+1=2. The question isn't purely rhetorical, a direct ("yes" or "no") answer from the
one that comment was directed to would have been nice (rather than a dodge and more arguing and debating behaviour, 'not open to any agreement' as the
behaviour is described and predicted in the bible at 2 Timothy 3:1-5, dancing around
the issue).

There are more places where I responded to that behaviour in the threads about "knowledge" (on the philosophy and metaphysics forum, green) and
"truth" (on the religion, theology forum, yellow).

Not really sure what you are trying to say here or how it is relevant to my question.
I followed the links and perhaps missed your point.

Your words and commentary to me tell a different story. Many times in the past you have twisted something I was saying, or a point I was making to fit
better with the picture of someone applying blind faith and unjustified trust in the bible as a reliable source (blind trust).

Krahzeef, my belief in the bible ('s accuracy and reliability) is based on my conclusion (from reasoning on the facts) that it isn't wrong. My belief
is not standing in the way of reasoning on the facts to determin whether or not it's right or wrong about something, it's a result of it. It does not
stand in the way of seeing or learning that it is right or wrong, if I found out it was wrong, I would not believe in it (I would not believe that it
was accurate and reliable, I would believe that it was wrong).

I have evidence and logical reasons to put my trust in the bible and to consider what it says when reasoning on the facts. And I wonder if there is a
possible answer why there are so many people that first need to twist or misrepresent what the bible is teaching before they can refute it that fits
better than the answer I'm getting from the bible regarding this human behaviour. It's similar to my wonder and amazement regarding those who have
trouble admitting that 1+1=2 is a fact/certainty and that 1=1, not 0.999999. If the bible is so wrong, why the need for elaborate but deceptive
argumentation twisting logic and the way people view even the most simple facts/certainties? Why are those often 'not putting up with'
(2 Timothy 4:3, 4) my words or the most simple points I'm making "not open
to any agreement" (2 Timothy 3:1-5), not even regarding whether or not 1+1=2 is
a fact/certainty or whether or not it is rational to believe that it is (see
the thread about "knowledge" and
my conversation with "InTheLight"; "nameless" thinks the same way)? Or
why can't they even get a simple matter like that right in all their elaborate philosophizing? The information in the bible answers these questions
for me, I have little reason to trust those doing what I see them doing and just described (especially since their justifications for arguing in this
manner do not make any logical sense to me, I recognize standard propaganda techniques in them instead, especially the way people have been
conditioned to put their trust in the wrong types and institutions like Langer and Harvard, see my
conversation with "nameless").

Some of the ones arguing about 1+1 not always being 2 (or related arguments "against 1 being 1", quoting TerryDon79) are acting as if they've just
re-discovered the wheel or green gold (and plenty of Baldricks going along with it thinking they've got something):

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The behaviour is a big sign on the wall (figuratively).

Regarding my evidence for the reliability of the bible. Obviously it's not the only line of evidence.

Romans 16:18

For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites,* and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the
hearts of unsuspecting ones.

* = Or “bellies.”

Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing
from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts
of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a
matter.

I recognize a lot of smooth talk in the quotations from Langer and those going along with it (or making similar arguments). Also as if they are having
remarkable insights into what things are supposedly like or how to view things (feeling enlightened and nurturing that feeling in those who are
willing to go along with their philosophies).

Oh, the phrase "they've got something" in my previous comment can also be phrased as "they're onto something" (perhaps that's more clear regarding
what I meant).

Your words and commentary to me tell a different story. Many times in the past you have twisted something I was saying, or a point I was making to fit
better with the picture of someone applying blind faith and unjustified trust in the bible as a reliable source (blind trust).

I can respect your opinion and still disagree with it. I'm not calling you names or insulting your intelligence or anything like that. I haven't
twisted anything. You have gotten upset over my terminology (ie the word "complex"). And then when I went back and explained precisely what I meant
by the word, you still denied my explanation. If you do not intend to mean that ID is fact, please let me know now and I'll drop the whole thing. If
that's the case, it's all just a misunderstanding.

Fair enough, I just got the impression from the site that the best way to find the truth is to listen to what a person says. Then check the bible, if
it doesn't match then the person is wrong.

I don't expect to change your beliefs, I'm just curious as to how you have come to them.

I totally agree regarding the whole 1+1 thing.
People seem more concerned with winning a debate then gaining any understanding. There are a lot of atheists who watched too much Hovind and picked up
his tricks I think.

It would be dishonest to say I respect your beliefs much like you wouldn't respect the beliefs of a godless heathen like myself. But whether a God
exists is the most important question we can ask.

The fact is we are on opposite sides of the fence and at least one of us are wrong.

originally posted by: Barcs
I can respect your opinion and still disagree with it.

You responded to the straw man 'complexity'-argument without me even mentioning the word "complex" or "complexity" (to avoid someone bringing up that
straw man argument or responding to it by explaining how complexity can arise in nature by natural processes, that is to say, things that are caused
by the laws of nature alone, in your first comment to me on this thread you did the same thing by mentioning "We have observed simple become complex
before via evolution"; that's responding to a straw man argument even when the word "complexity" or "complex" was used in another context, not just
any complexity one can point to, as if explaining the appearance of just any complexity will do, and then people usually point to patterns instead,
like you did when you posted some pictures of rock formations with a peculiar pattern), you tried to fit my words into your straw man, twisting them
to make it appear I was arguing for the argument you were responding to (both in your mind as in your commentary).

But I wasn't even thinking about that when I said something about twisting someone's position or points (you just reminded me of more of the same).
You're still going on about complexity though as if the arguments I'm making are anything like the straw man you've been taught.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Fair enough, I just got the impression from the site that the best way to find the truth is to listen to what a person says. Then check the bible, if
it doesn't match then the person is wrong.

Yes, empathy for the way someone who does not think that the bible is the word of God thinks informed me with the same impression when I read that
part. Someone like that first needs to evaluate whether or not the bible is 100% accurate/true/correct from start to finish before one can understand
the advice given there, which isn't quite meant the way you describe it. Notice the line starts with:

Here a Christian has a source of great wisdom.

Sadly, those who have not recognized or discovered the usefulness and reliability of this source when distinguishing between truths/facts and
lies/falsehoods, cannot use this tool in the same manner as adviced after that line. It requires a preceding step (study).

Romans 3:3,4: What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be
found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you
are being judged.”

Here are some of the tools a person has been given by God (or the ability to acquire) to find out who's lying and who's trying to tell you the truth
about the subjects of reality that matter the most:

A person needs all of them for the preceding step (study to acquire or learn facts, knowledge that relates to the subjects discussed in the bible in
order to evaluate it properly rather than going along with whatever bible critics are teaching and parrotting after eachother without a diligent study
of the facts using all of the tools above properly, without the usual twisting and dancing around).

I can't read much more of that. I guess I'm reading without a pure heart or something but I can't help but be cynical.

I did find the "Caution in gaining knowledge" part interesting.

Thus, too, the knowledge obtained by ‘devotion to many books,’ unless tied in with and put to use in the carrying out of God’s commands, is
“wearisome to the flesh.”

They seem to be promoting an ignorance is bliss philosophy. They may be right to do so. Spend a lifetime looking for answers and get stress or just
accept some bad ones and be happy. Either way you will be just as close to the truth in the end.

We have infinitely more resources now than Solomon could have dreamed of.
Perhaps it's time to start asking the real questions?

There was no strawman. Your opinion relies on personal faith and interpretation of what is in the cell and what YOU believe it indicates. By
complexity, I already told you precisely what I meant by that, so your accusation is invalid. You used that argument as a red herring to to avoid
addressing any of my points.

Sorry, but the term complexity fits and there is absolutely ZERO evidence you can provide to PROVE that the "machinery" inside cells was created in
its current form. You avoid this point like the plague because it proves your argument is purely faith based, hence NOT proven as you so dearly wish
it to be.

If life can start simple and evolve into multi celluar organisms with complex biological systems like brains, hearts, stomachs, muscles, etc, why
couldn't the DNA also change and become more complex over that same time? Can you please answer this question without dodging or avoiding it? This
is a very simple question and you are going through great lengths to dodge it. Please don't respond with any more red herring videos, JW apologetics
or quote mines.

originally posted by: BarcsIf life can start simple and evolve into multi celluar organisms with complex biological systems like brains, hearts, stomachs, muscles, etc,
why couldn't the DNA also change and become more complex over that same time? Can you please answer this question without dodging or avoiding it?
This is a very simple question and you are going through great lengths to dodge it.

Yeah, if only it could do that...

But that's what we've been talking about since our first conversation (so a little odd to talk about dodging questions). I don't agree with the use of
"wishful speculations" (to sell evolutionary philosophies such as the one you just described, the part I bolded) described by microbiologist James
Shapiro of the University of Chicago and declared in National Review:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful
speculations.

This logically in turn counts for the organs these fundamental biochemical or cellular systems produce as well (which requires also cell
specification, another programmed and ordered system in living organisms).

I am also suspicious of the use of these "wishful speculations" because Newton (and the bible where he got this way of thinking from) warned me:

Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly
true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more
accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

Or worse, maybe- or just-so stories that Shapiro refers to as "wishful speculations". But I guess I'm just quote mining again, right? How convenient
to continue making that accusation by implying that I would respond with quote mining to prevent me to quote scientists who have studied these
subjects for years that are saying something you don't want to acknowledge (because it's not tickling your ears). It doesn't change my own conclusions
from studying these evolutionary philosophies told in the form of either a just-so story or maybe-so story (possible scenario). I've seen for example
Dawkins' storytelling skills regarding the evolution of the eye, it was very obvious to me what he was doing there, perhaps someone else may want to
have a look as well (I know you probably don't want to, seeing that you were already asking me not to use videos, while you're fine with videos that
tickle your ears; it really shouldn't matter to you if you're truly interested in answers).

The eye is discussed by Dawkins from 9:18 - 12:48 in the video below, a big clue as to why I don't need Shapiro to confirm or draw my conclusions for
me:

Here's another question you dodge for yourself (in your own mind as you make your comments and use the word "simple" in them regarding something that
is alive): Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
And here's the interactome of a unicellular yeast cell, an organism that has been around for a while (for those with understanding). Note that every
line is an indication of the interdependence of 1 biomolecular machine or machine(ry) complex on another (the machines are not well depicted because
that was not the purpose of this video):

That "interdependence" referring to the operations of or requirements for life as for example discussed in the video below after 30 seconds:

The 2nd part of your question is sneaky again. Almost like pretending that I'm arguing that DNA can't change over time (otherwise, why ask about
it?).

Here's a video with some information about how DNA changes over time and how some people misrepresent or leave out some facts (using half-truths) on
purpose to do some (false) storytelling (myth = false story). It's best to start at 4:21, lest you get misled by misleading argumentation regarding
the word "information" and the concept of "new information":

originally posted by: whereislogic
But that's what we've been talking about since our first conversation (so a little odd to talk about dodging questions). I don't agree with the use of
"wishful speculations" (to sell evolutionary philosophies such as the one you just described, the part I bolded) described by microbiologist James
Shapiro of the University of Chicago and declared in National Review

I'm not selling you anything, evolution is not up for debate in any aspect of science or reality. Only stubborn religious folk with no scientific
knowledge whatsoever still deny it. Again, why do you believe that DNA could not have started much simpler and increased in complexity and
functionality over time? This is a viable scientific hypothesis, but you think it's impossible. I'd still like some evidence of such, instead of
repeatedly dodging the question over and over. I don't care about James Shapiro's quote mined opinion. I specifically told you not to reply with
quote mines, people's opinions or JW propaganda and you did it anyway. You have absolutely zero evidence in support of your guess and your
credibility is almost non existent now.

This logically in turn counts for the organs these fundamental biochemical or cellular systems produce as well (which requires also cell
specification, another programmed and ordered system in living organisms).

Logically, an opinion is not evidence of anything. Do some research; it's not that hard to find evolutionary theories of complex organs. Scientists
may not know every last detail of how every single system evolved, but that doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make ID right.

Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly
true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more
accurate, or liable to exceptions,

Too bad we're talking science, not philosophy.

Or worse, maybe- or just-so stories that Shapiro refers to as "wishful speculations". But I guess I'm just quote mining again, right? How
convenient to continue making that accusation by implying that I would respond with quote mining to prevent me to quote scientists who have studied
these subjects for years that are saying something you don't want to acknowledge (because it's not tickling your ears).

DUDE! It's not that hard. A scientist's opinion IS STILL AN OPINION. It doesn't magically become fact based, just because a scientist or former
scientist believes it. This is the appeal to authority fallacy. You need to stop using faulty logic to justify your personal opinion. Many
scientists believe in god, despite the lack of objective evidence. Beliefs are still beliefs whether it's a scientist that believes it or a high
priest.

Here's another question you dodge for yourself (in your own mind as you make your comments and use the word "simple" in them regarding
something that is alive):

How can you accuse me of dodging that when you haven't asked it, and it's a rhetorical question? Again, you use JW propaganda to conclude that the
first DNA or RNA was just as complex as modern DNA when you have no reason to believe that. I'd say yes, an ancient single celled organism is FAR
simpler than a modern multi cellular organism. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. For something very simple, you do not need
billions of base pairs of DNA. That makes no logical sense at all. I'm not watching propaganda youtube videos. If you can't provide actual
scientific research to support your position, I don't want to hear it.

The 2nd part of your question is sneaky again. Almost like pretending that I'm arguing that DNA can't change over time (otherwise, why ask
about it?).

But you ARE arguing that it couldn't have evolved over time and that ID is fact. If you think DNA can change over time, why are you so adamant about
arguing irreducible complexity as you have referred to more than once (which is pure opinion as well, you can't prove ANYTHING is irreducibly
complex)? You reference DNA and biological systems, claiming wishful thinking, when scientists have already demonstrated exactly how it can happen,
but then think because a scientist has an opinion that ID is anything beyond wishful thinking. It's hypocritical.

So again, you have failed to provide any logical or objective reason why DNA had to have been created/designed/programmed. Why do you dodge this
question over and over? Surely you have something beyond conjecture and propaganda that shows DNA couldn't have arisen naturally over time, or at
least something beyond personal opinions and quote mines. I'll admit we don't know know the full answer as far as the origin of life goes yet, but
that doesn't mean it was designed or that it couldn't have arisen naturally.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.